Talk:Q
Working title? Chaos Theory was initially said to be a title of a Short Trek, but it was not one of the titles revealed at SDCC yesterday ; Q&A was, and I added four of the others, but I did not add "Children of Mars"(likely the Picard show prequel mentioned) because I didn't want to just remove "Chaos Theory" without agreement on how to handle that. 31dot (talk) 07:26, July 21, 2019 (UTC) :We add them all and adjust as needed when we get more info. Chaos Theory might have been a shooting title, or we're getting an extra one as the teaser for PIC. Someone is likely to give us an answer soon, but for now we have seven titles. - 18:50, July 21, 2019 (UTC) makes it clear that there are only 6 Short Treks, and they had already announced six titles of which Chaos Theory isn't one. 31dot (talk) 00:47, July 22, 2019 (UTC) :Chaos Theroy was most likely the shooting title for Q&A based on the people we assume were involved and the timing of everything, but we don't know really why it isn't included in what they are promoting now, or even what the order of release is for the ones that are confirmed. Until we do know what happened to it, it should stay where it is, if only to provide incentive for an answer. I don't expect it will take long for one to be provided once the post SDCC articles come out and people have time to notice we have 7 titles for 6 episodes. - 05:29, July 22, 2019 (UTC) ::I suspect, but cannot prove, that "Chaos Theory" was a working title for the episode that was announced as . We know from the Instagram photos that "Chaos Theory" starred Ethan Peck and Rebecca Romijn and was written by Michael Chabon, and in the SDCC interviews Romijn identified the Chabon-written episode with Spock and Number One in the turbolift as "Q&A". That strongly suggests that the episode with "Chaos Theory" on its clapperboard will be released as "Q&A", though it's still possible (though, I think, unlikely) that "Chaos Theory" is one of the other two Enterprise-set Short Trek''s. ::Regardless, since "Chaos Theory" was definitely not one of the announced titles, can/should we delete this page? Would it be too speculative to put the information from this page on , with appropriate caveats? —Josiah Rowe (talk) 18:08, July 30, 2019 (UTC) :Merged this with an earlier discussion on the same subject, but in a different location. - (on an unsecure connection) 18:59, July 30, 2019 (UTC) ::Thanks. I thought I'd seen a previous discussion on this topic, but couldn't find it; I didn't think to look in the templates. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 19:01, July 30, 2019 (UTC) :I'm still of the opinion that we should wait for confirmation that this is Q&A before doing anything with it. I suspect the release order of these is the reverse of the reveal of the titles in the trailer, since we linger a bit on the shot of all of them and that the PIC plot seems to be all about a mystery girl. Once there are release dates for these I figure we'll get an answer to what happened to poor Chaos Theory here, if not before. I was expecting a bit more follow up on the SDCC news then we got, so there still isn't an answer about this as far as I know. - (on an unsecure connection) 17:52, July 31, 2019 (UTC) ::In the interim, perhaps we should add a note on the page that this title was not among the six announced at SDCC, so may be a working title? —Josiah Rowe (talk) 18:11, July 31, 2019 (UTC) :I would leave off the the last bit, but it definitely wasn't in the trailer. - 05:17, August 2, 2019 (UTC) Amin? A few days ago, User:Jkirk8907 added Samora Smallwood as Amin to the cast of this episode. What’s the source for this? Did I miss something in the SDCC coverage? —Josiah Rowe (talk) 18:39, July 31, 2019 (UTC) :IMDB casting but I fixed it.--Jkirk8907 (talk) 03:47, August 1, 2019 (UTC) Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk) 19:23, August 1, 2019 (UTC) Dating I can't seem understand why this is referenced as taking place in 2254. While it certainly pre-dates "The Cage" (2254), I can find no direct reference in the episode to place it in that year. Assuming Spock entered the Academy in 2248 or '49 (as per information in "Journey to Babel" and "Star Trek XI" and after Burnham's graduation as seen in "Lethe") at age 18 (with his birth year of 2230 made canonical in "Star Trek Beyond"),the only way to coincide with the statement in "The Menagerie" that he served with Pike for 11 years, 4 months is that Spock came aboard the Enterprise in 2251 as a third year Cadet (this jibes with the discussion of doing a 2-year course with Onafuwa) and was given a field commission of Ensign (like Tilly had). He would complete his Academy training by 2252. Graduating in that year would correspond with "The Enterprise Incident" where he notes that he had been an officer (not just a cadet) for 18 years. This is consistant with Garth's speech in "Whom Gods Destroy" which suggests Spock was an official officer in SF after the Axanar peace mission in 2250. Also, his field promotion to Ensign would in 2251 would allow enough time (approx. 4 years) for Spock to earn the rank of Lieutenant by the time of "The Cage". Thus: 2230 - Spock is born 2248 - At age 18, joins Starfleet instead of the Vulcan Science Academy. Among his studies is a 2-year Quantum Stochastics combat modeling course. 2250 - Captain April is promoted to Commodore. His first officer Christopher Pike becomes Captain of the Enterprise. 2251 - During his third year at SF Academy, Spock is assigned to the Enterprise and given the field promotion to Ensign. 2252 - While serving aboard the Enterprise, Spock completes his 4-year Academy curriculum. 2254- After serving 4 years as Ensign, Spock is promoted to Lieutenant. Events in "The Cage" 17:07, October 8, 2019 (UTC) :I believe the 2254 date was derived by subtracting the "11 years, 4 months, 5 days" from the beginning of Kirk’s 5-year mission in 2265. That does assume that the 5-year mission and Kirk’s assumption of command of the ''Enterprise were simultaneous, but that seems a fair assumption to me. :If Spock arrived on the Enterprise in 2250, then Kirk would have had to take over from Pike in 2261, four years before the start of the 5-year mission. That seems unlikely to me. :Spock could still have become an ensign before 2254. There’s no reason (as far as I know) to assume that the Enterprise was his first posting. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 18:06, October 8, 2019 (UTC) ::So it's an educated guess? That's not good enough. Apart from the assumption that Kirk assumed command of the Enterprise in 2265 (and when exactly in 2265, and when in the year the Menagerie is set also plays), you also have to wonder if Spock subtracted his DIS season 2 leave of absence (and maybe even the subsequent 124 days before the Enterprise was relaunched) from his rather exact accounting of the days he served with Pike. -- Capricorn (talk) 18:51, October 8, 2019 (UTC) :::User:Noah Tall was the editor that added that date on October 5th. Why don't we ask him how he arrived at that year? -- Renegade54 (talk) 19:38, October 8, 2019 (UTC) You're forgetting that Pike served two 5-year missions. 15:33, October 9, 2019 (UTC) :a) Do we know that? If so, from what source? :b) Even assuming that's true, how does that affect the date of Spock's arrival on the Enterprise? —Josiah Rowe (talk) 16:09, October 9, 2019 (UTC) ::::Chronology recap : ::::* 2230 : Birth of Spock ::::* 2249 (Mid?<) : Burnham graduated from Vulcan Science Academy ("2245-2249" in personnel file from ) Sarek is confronted with a choice between Spock and Burnham ( ) ::::* 2249 (Mid?>) or 2250 (Mid?>) : Spock enters Starfleet Academy (18 years before set in 2268) ::::* 2250 (end?) - 2257 (early) : First Pike 5-year mission ("Captain Christopher Pike 2250-Present" from technical file and comments from return at the end of the klingon war) ::::* 2253 (Mid?<) or 2254 (Mid?<) : Spock graduated from Starfleet Academy if we assume it took him 4 years ::::* ???? : Spock is assigned to the Enterprise as an Ensign (provisionnal rank during academy ? after graduation graduation ? first posting ?) - Duration 11,35 years under Pike's command ::::* 2254 : Events from The Cage where Spock is lieutenant ::::* 2258 - 2264 (?) : Second Pike 5-year mission (presumption) ::::* 2265 (end ?) - 2270 : First Kirk 5-year mission ( ) ::::In fact, we clearly don't have all the canon answers because we can make many hypothesis. I personaly think ensign Spock joins the Enterprise in 2253, assuming he was at starfleet academy between 2249 and 2253 and that after a year he was promoted lieutenant, so he served Pike 11.35 years from mid-2253 to early 2265 (Pike's assistant during an eventual Enterprise refit). - From Cardassia with pain (talk) 16:31, October 11, 2019 (UTC) :::::Okay, I only just now realized there was a discussion on this. As was stated earlier, the reason I put 2254 was because of the dialogue early in THE MENAGERIE PART ONE where Spock tells Kirk and Mendez how long he served under Pike prior to his service with Kirk. :::::Kirk to Pike's place for the 2265-2270 five year mission. Pike apparently had three five year missions; right after Robert April who had one. Pike served from 2250-2255, and then again from 2255-2260, and finally 2260-2265. These three "five year missions" were never named as such in canon, but it is canon that Pike served from 2250-2265. :::::The date that Kirk's five year mission began was established in the Voyager episode Q2, which named 2270 as the final year of the first five year mission of Kirk's. This also fits with the dates shown in season 2 of Discovery. It may have been very early in 2254, no doubt it was, but I don't see how it could be something else. I was actually assuming that this included his leave of absence and his time on the Discovery factored in as well. Especially since he reminded Starfleet during his inquiry that Discovery should be a secret. I think all that time would have counted. :::::If people don't think that's a good enough reason maybe we should just put "Early 2250s" or "Circa 2254." :::::--Noah Tall (talk) 06:04, October 12, 2019 (UTC) ::Well I for one am deeply uncomfortable with these "reasonable guess" type datings. People here and elsewhere take them as hard fact, even do math with them (leading to style cumulative errors), and it just leads to a a whole lot of assertions that are built on sand, when there is absolutely no need for things to be like that. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:08, October 12, 2019 (UTC) ::::::I don't want to alarm you, but a large number of our dates require this kind of math. All of TOS was at one point dated from a single reference in TNG, and almost all of it is still dated from just a handful of references. Almost all of the films have soft dates too. We allow these because being off by a year or two is better than everything taking place in century long windows of possibilities. If the math checks outs, I say we run with it, though dates like this are suppose to be noted in the background information. - 23:50, October 12, 2019 (UTC) :::I agree with Archduk3... I think the math works out to a very reasonable degree, and we should keep the date, but we should also write up the reasoning above into a suitable background note and add it to the article. -- Renegade54 (talk) 06:12, October 14, 2019 (UTC) ::I know all about that, all I'm saying is that it's a non-ideal situation and therefore it shouldn't proliferate until absolutely nescesary. I'm intentionally trying to take hawkish stances on this kind of thing because the aforementioned dead reckoning uncertainty is in full effect when it comes to dating season two of Discovery, this disambiguation is nothing but a guess, and the dating for Calypso is no longer based on anything substantial. (I can only pray season 3 changes that) But I do agree that transparency is the most important thing here. People tend to take what we write here as hard fact, so when there's room for ambiguity it should not be easy for the reader to miss that. And the way the 2254 number is popping up everywhere misses that mark, I feel. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:33, October 14, 2019 (UTC) ::::::Considering how DIS is written, I expect it to get worse before it gets better. I was under the mistaken impression that the show would follow up on Mudd when I made that page, and for all we know one of them will, eventually, but I don't know of a better disambiguation since we have other ships in both the 2250s and the 2260s for him. That's why the "first" reasonable date is used and the note there just flat out says we're guessing. I can make a template for these "best guess" dates from the new shows so they are at least trackable later, and put in some fancy stuff some computer users will at least know something is fishy with the date. The problem will be it could very quickly be used to just put TMP in 2273, or to "solve" some of our other long standing dating issues, which is not the intent. - 21:12, October 14, 2019 (UTC) :::::::If we don't know for sure when Mudd's many ships were shown, perhaps a "Mudd's starships" page might be better, identifying them by the details of the incident where they appeared rather than year. --LauraCC (talk) 16:27, October 18, 2019 (UTC) ::I'm happy that this is something you're thinking about, but can you explain how that circa template is supposed to be used? -- Capricorn (talk) 07:36, October 22, 2019 (UTC) Watsonian vs. Doylist In one of the quotes I just added from the SyFy Wire interview with Michael Chabon, he refers to the "Watsonian" and "Doylist" explanations for why Spock's character and manner in The Cage are so different from the rest of TOS. I understood the terms (if you don't, TV Tropes has a decent explanation ), but I'm not sure how widespread that understanding is. Is it self-explanatory, or should I add a note explaining the terms? Or a link to the TV Tropes article (or another source that explains what they mean)? Or should "Doylist" link to The Cage (episode)#Continuity, which has a bit about the differences between the way Nimoy played Spock in that episode and the way he played him opposite Shatner? —Josiah Rowe (talk) 05:22, October 16, 2019 (UTC) Capricorn inserted a link into the quote, which I suppose works. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 18:55, October 23, 2019 (UTC)